CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashok Kumar vs MD, HPGCL and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 P&H CK 0024

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.M.S. Bedi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 16
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWP 8713 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 370 words

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—The claim of one Phool Kumar, elder brother of the petitioner for compassionate employment pursuant to Policy decision dated 7.4.1992 to provide employment to the land owners, whose land had bee acquired against the vacancies of Meter Readers in case of Matriculation and Daily Wagers in case of under Matriculate or Illiterate, has been rejected by the Chief Engineer on 7.2.2012 (Annexure P-10) by observing as under:-

Now coming to the case of the petitioner, it is a matter of record that Shri Laxman applied for employment for his son named Sh. Phool Kumar (petitioner) on 10.7.1992. The application of the petitioner had not been moved for providing employment in lieu of acquisition of land on or before 13.12.1991 i.e. cut off date.

In view of the fact that land owner i.e. father of Sh. Phool Kumar petitioner/petitioner himself had not applied for providing employment on or before the cut off date 13.12.1991 and at this belated stage when the policy is no longer in vogue, the claim of the petitioner is not feasible of acceptance.

This court has held in CWP No. 8670 of 2013, which reads as follows:-

In view of no enforceable statutory legal right available to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Besides this, this court is of the opinion that the appointment sought for is not a public appointment but was in the shape of additional bonus to the acquisition. The writ petition is dismissed.

2.

I have considered the claim of the petitioner Ashok Kumar and I am of the opinion that the claim of his father and his brother, Phool Kumar has already been considered. The petitioner has filed this petition for the first time before this court claiming that his brother Phool Kumar had relinquished his right in his favour, to be considered for employment he having become over age for job. The petitioner cannot now at this belated stage step into the shoes of his brother Phool Kumar or father Laxman for compassionate appointment. No ground is made out for issuing any directions to the respondents. Dismissed